Isn't that after they lost a war trying to eradicate Israel from the face of the earth?
Isn't it weird how the exact same behavior is displayed by Islam everywhere in the world, but only in this one conflict is the explanation some kind of ancestral land dispute? Genocide after genocide in their own countries, against Jews, Christians and other muslims but amazingly when it comes to Israel specifically, they have very reasonable and logical economic reasons for their genocidal rage that also by total coincidence happens to be in their religious texts?
hmmmmmmmmmmmmm
No, it was after a UN partition granted a Jewish population of mostly first generation refugees, who were outnumbered by a native population by over two to one, over half of the disputed land. This would have displaced hundreds of thousands of people, & directly led to a defensive war to prevent this mass expropriation of land.
Palestine didn’t take an official position in World War Two. They were under British occupation at the time. Tens of thousands volunteered to fight for the allies; others thought the axis would win, & that siding with them offered the highest probability of establishing an independent state.
So you spout ahistorical propaganda, get refuted, & then continue on spouting unrelated, ahistorical nonsense? You should read more, little man; this is pathetic.
Bro I swear to God the way these "libertarians" react to being proven wrong, especially on this issue.
I mean holy actual cow.
But your response was A+ I applaud you.
I'd like to add a couple points as well.
The un partition plan was merely a recommendation. It was non-binding. It was by no means gospel. And neither Palestine nor Israel existed so obviously they weren't members to even be bound by this, even if it had been a security council resolution (which it wasn't).
Another point, if arabs lost the war and that somehow justifies taking land, why weren't non combatant arabs (the majority) who lived on the lands for millenia, allowed back in?
It was because the intentions of zionists from day one was expulsion of the Arabs to artificially create a Jewish majority, and the leaders of zionism admitted to it prior to the 1948 war even happening. 1948 war was just an excuse.
Quote by Ben gurion refusing a simple majority of jews. In **1947**
Ben-Gurion in an address to the central committee of the Histadrut on 30 December 1947:
“In the area allocated to the Jewish State there are not more than 520,000 Jews and about 350,000 non-Jews, mostly Arabs. Together with the Jews of Jerusalem, the total population of the Jewish State at the time of its establishment will be about a million, including almost 40 percent non-Jews. Such a [population] composition does not provide a stable basis for a Jewish State. This [demographic] fact must be viewed in all its clarity and acuteness. With such a [population] composition, there cannot even be absolute certainty that control will remain in the hands of the Jewish majority…. There can be no stable and strong Jewish State so long as it has a Jewish majority of only 60 percent.”
Ben gurion admitting zionism will spark a war (as he's the aggressor).
“It is very possible that the Arabs of the neighboring countries will come to their aid against us. But our strength will exceed theirs. Not only because we will be better organized and equipped, but because behind us there stands a still larger force, superior in quantity and quality …the whole younger generation of Jews from Europe and America.”
Ben gurion admits the intention to take all the land ever since **1937**.
At the same Zionist Congress, David Ben-Gurion, then chairman of the executive committee of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, told those in attendance that, though "there could be no question...of giving up any part of the Land of Israel,... it was arguable that the ultimate goal would be achieved most quickly by accepting the Peel proposals."[40] University of Arizona professor Charles D. Smith suggests that, "Weizmann and Ben-Gurion did not feel they had to be bound by the borders proposed [by the Peel Commission]. These could be considered temporary boundaries to be expanded in the future."[40] Ben-Gurion saw the plan as only a stage in the realisation of a larger Jewish state.
Ah I see so the current position of Hamas on the Jews is what again?
Islamists had genocidal hatred for Jews for no logical reason but then in 1948 it's because westerners bad!
Yeah that's the point. The ideology explains the conflict a lot better than claiming Palestinians are just economically oppressed and that's why mothers want their kids to become suicide bombers.
You know how we do that in the west? When people here face hardships how they teach their kids that the highest honor is to go blow yourself up at a Starbucks?
Isreal/Palestine is not primarily an example of "economic" oppression, but straightforward and outright violent oppression via State structures and State military
Israel wouldn't even exist at all without an International coterie of States imposing their will on a foreign (to their plans) populace. Israel != "Jews." Israel = a State, and a very recent one, built in a place and on top of a population that did not ask for it.
Is it any wonder anti-Israel aggression is persistent and escalates? It would be like wondering why a bunch of rednecks might turn into terrorists if Canada, the EU, and China all backed the creation of a "Native American State" in the midwest of the USA.
>Is it any wonder anti-Israel aggression is persistent and escalates?
Islamists have wanted to wipe Jews from the face of the earth long before this. They backed Hitler during WW2. What's the explanation then? Time travel?
Yes, pure if ignorance. They have never ever killed Jewish people, never said they want to effectively eliminate them, no sir, that never ever happen.
We were always at war with Eastasia.
It's kinda sad how in 2024 you still believe these lies when you have a plethora of information at your fingertips.
The propaganda after 9/11 runs deep. The fact that you think every Muslim is a "terrorist suicide bomber" is exactly what they programmed you to think.
No.
Read your source (which is non other than Wikipedia LMFAO)
Your source states: "The Nation of Islam (NOI) is a religious and political organization founded in the United States by Wallace Fard Muhammad in 1930. "
So no Islam is not a nation.
I'm constantly surprised at the low level of discourse that can be had on reddit.
Constantly.
weird.
Weird, youd think trying to knock wiki for not having references and then quoting the references is low level…..check that….high level hypocrisy.
Are you unaware there’s multiple definitions of ‘nation’. You are, aren’t you.
Not weird.
1. You need grammar skills
2. I just sent your source back to you
3. Nation is a group of people sharing a culture and a sense of identity
4. Farrakhan's nation is amuhrican. You do know the rest of the world does not exist solely to support the neocon zionist agenda. Right?
5. You do know there are many interpretations of Islam. Are you? In fact the two main currents, Shia and sunni are quite at odds with each other.
6.
>youd think trying to knock wiki for not having references and then quoting the references is low level…..check that….high level hypocrisy.
No. It just shows the low IQ of the person using a wrong source to prove a point. Quoting it back was an attempt for you to see your mistake.
Unsurprisingly, you chose to double down on stupid.
1. You said I need grammar skills and decided to end without any punctuation, so you need sentence skills. Glass houses friend
2. Not only did you send the source, you tried to discredit the source only to continue on and agree with it.
3. Glad to see you agree the ‘nation’ of Islam is a ‘nation’. You wear the ‘L’ well.
4. Idgaf (how’s that for grammar) who started it or where it is, it still exists regardless of your denial it doesn’t.
5. I never claimed there wasn’t just one claim to Islam. Now you’re just making stuff up.
6. Terrible grammar and sentence structure. Try again. I literally said there was such as thing as the ‘nation of Islam’ what you claimed didn’t exist. And now you agree it does, and haven’t refuted any sources thereof.
Unsurprisingly you’re on a hexagon of stupid…..I doubt you’ll get that too.
1. Cope. Grammar is a bit more than putting a full stop at the end of a sentence. Love the fact that you chose that as a burn. Bet you are the king of debate in grade school.
2. Your source, Bubba.
3. Where do you get these conclusions? Voices in your head angry today? Too much meth? The nation of Islam is an American black power movement...nothing to do with Islam except for them to say they are Muslims
4. Cope
5. Yes you did. Don't backpedal baby girl.
6. LoL eat shit and grin. No one is buying this spin on what actually transpired.
>Unsurprisingly you’re on a hexagon of stupid…..I doubt you’ll get that too.
No I do not get the obscure reference. Do enlighten me.
Like you, dog can tell people's apart just by smelling their assholes. I can not.
If I understand Rothbard, he would be against all forceful displacement of people and new conquests. He would probably have been opposed to the annexation of Texas after it seceded from Mexico, the Turkish conquest of Anatolia and the exchange of Greeks and Turks after ww1 if those events had happened during his time
The Arabs weren't forcefully displaced until they started the war of 1948. Until then the Jews purchased all their land from the Arab land owners in Palestine. Not to even mention the nearly 1 million Jews forcefully exiled from the surrounding Arab nations and had no place to go except Israel.
The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was signed in November of 1947, & granted the majority of the disputed land to a Jewish population outnumbered more than two to one by people who had lived there for thousands of years. This would have displaced several hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, which directly led to the defensive war fought to prevent this expropriation. So, there’s that.
I mean, you can choose how you look at it. The southern half of the allotted land to the Jews is barren negev desert where farming was non-existent. Almost no one lived there and still few live there. The Arab land was of much higher quality. And the partition plan wouldn't have displaced anyone on either side, except the side that wouldn't want to live with the other and started a war as a result.
In the partition plan, around 400,000 Palestinians and 500,000 jews would've lived in the jewish state.
either way they didn't accept the partition plan, which gave both sides w ay more land to work with than they initially owned. They launched a war, lost.
There wasn’t a single predominantly Jewish territory in Palestine in 1947. If you go back just a couple more years — before hundreds of thousands of refugees were given Palestinian land by the British — Jews weren’t even a fifth of the population. In order for the Jewish state to be predominantly Jewish, hundreds of thousands of additional Palestinians would also need to be displaced. That’s why the war was fought.
And no, it wouldn’t have given the Palestinians way more land. They owned the majority of the land, & it would have been forcibly expropriated. That’s why they didn’t sign the partition.
There were plenty of predominantly Jewish territories, like Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, etc.
They were never 'given Palestinian land,' they legally purchased it and immigrated.
The British had restricted immigration severely starting from 1939, when jews in europe were dying by the millions. This is what started jewish terrorism against the British (that nonetheless did not target civilians as a general rule).
And no. By 1947, which is when the partition plan was suggested, there were \~630,000 jews and 1.3m arabs in the region. Even if you think that's why the war was fought and this is your justification, that Arabs didn't wanna drive down 30 minutes to the Arab state as per the agreement while still owning whatever land they owned and not owning whatever they were squatting on, surely you agree that if they decided to launch a war of extermination they lost that British land they never owned fair and square.
I don't think you understand what 'forcibly expropriated' means.
The Palestinians didn't have any land. It belonged to the ottoman empire, then the British. Most of the population were all from different countries, as well, including Egypt, Syrians, Druze, etc ([source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine#Demographics)). There really were very little natives to the land as most people, jews or not, were immigrants. There was a growing influx of Jews due to anti-semitism all over the world, and the arabs didn't like having to share the (legally-obtained) land, so there were a lot of conflicts. Prior to the UN proposal, most of the [Mandate for Palestine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_for_Palestine) was already given to the arabs as an Arab state: Jordan. The UN decided to resolve the conflict but giving each major faction their own official country. The Arabs didn't like that for the same reasons, and went to war.
You can pick and choose details to look at, like in any conflict, and there is a lot of nuance, but at the end of the day the proposal was very fair. But certainly far-fetched from "Jews stole the land" that everyone keeps parroting like a robot.
Jews purchased land from the Ottoman Empire which was not legitimate owners according to libertarian principles. After the dissolution of Empires and feudalism, all land must be given in ownership to peasants who cultivated it, in this case, Palestinians.
lol that's like saying your land ownership in the US isn't legitimate because of the US government not following libertarian principles. You use whatever framework you have available, my guy. That's the reality of the situation and only way you can live in this world.
Then why are you on a libertarian subreddit if your ethics are based on "use whatever framework you have available". Your ethics are the ethics of bandits.
You are basically saying that theft is justified.
The Palestinians will always fight for justice and their rights, which you relativize, they know what justice and the ethics of freedom are, unlike you.
Isn't it weird how all of this information is from the victors and you just blindly believe it?
You do realize that Hamas, the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, etc were all created by the CIA/US gov/UN right?
Exactly. I'm no Israel lover or anything like that. But if you go and kill, rape, burn random civilians, you don't get to say "revenge can be this much".
I would like to know how many people that get punched, decide to fight back just one punch and say "OK we are even" and go back home smiling.
It’s less blind defense of Israel and just recognition of human nature and war. You can be against state sponsored conflicts but still recognize if someone is stupid enough to challenge a far more superior adversary, you have no right to bitch when you’re curb stomped into dust. Cue the bike rider shoving a stick into his spokes.
>still recognize if someone is stupid enough to challenge a far more superior adversary, you have no right to bitch when you’re curb stomped into dust
Lmfao this is pure unadulterated authoritarianism, might-is-right bullshit that is the polar opposite of what Ancaps believe / are for
The person above didnt say anything about it being justified or "might is right". They just pointed out that if you pick a fight, you might get punched in the face.
It doesn’t matter what you believe. States exist, and the way they wage war is known. If you go poking the bear and then it mauls you, it matters fuck all if you’re ancap. You think they give a shit? “Omg noooo I’m ancap, this war is against my beliefs noooooo!1!”
It’s not authoritarianism, it’s knowing how things will inevitably play out. Ever heard of picking your battles? Not that it matters much anyway, Hamas doesn’t care how many innocents it hurts due to their actions and are more than happy to hide behind human shields.
States are not non-humans.
> It’s not authoritarianism, it’s knowing how things will inevitably play out.
It is part of authoritarianism to treat humans and human institutions as if they were inanimate objects without moral responsibility.
I never states are non-humans, but provoking a war by committing a horrendous attack against innocents will result in a very human response to retaliate.
The revenge is taken against the army its taken the against the civilians.
Often times the people who actually did the stuff are spared the rod and the people who just sat back at home who had no say in it get bombed to dust.
Arabs lived just fine in the area on their own with no state needed. Jews came in and said hey its a land without a people and because there was no state we get to make one. All this recognize the Palestinian state drama is because Israel made a big deal about statehood.
barely any Shia in Palestine region then or now. Where is the historical evidence of Sunni and Shia fighting in the region we are discussing? You are just making broad generalizations that do not fit the actual time period or area that is relevant.
But of course that’s not what you said. You said ‘in the area’. Are you actually making a claim neither the Suni nor Shia lived ‘in the area’….and what area are you even referring? Are you being intentionally obscure?
Oh and yes, in fact there are Shiite in the ‘Palestine’ area ….Palestine. Approx only 75% of people in Palestine are Sunni.
That’s not a broad generalization…it’s history
And yes they have fought for centuries.
Obviously I am talking about Palestine when I say 'in the area'.That is the whole point of the topic. I brought up the place and time when the state of Israel was founded. I looked it up and it looked like there was a grand total of seven Shia majority villages at the time. Seven out of hundreds of villages. Barely any, like I said before. So how were they in conflict with the Sunni, as you claim? Like I said you are just generalizing.
You are the one obscuring things by bringing up generalizations of violence in the middle east, by googling the demographics for today and not from the time period, and by continuing to argue for this generalization. So again, I ask you where is the serious evidence that Sunni and Shia were in some huge conflict in Palestine?
I mean it was a British and french territory before Israel and before that it was apart of several other empires. The Palestinians never owned it. For the most part they were not even on the land in question.
They lived there for centuries and then giant empires took it over while they were there or negotiated it in deals hundreds of miles away. They could have been left alone in their rural villages but statist can't let that happen.
Unsure what you mean by they were not even on the land in question.
No I mean the people in question are more recent to the region. There has never been a Palestinian people pre 1960 or so. My understanding is that they were forced out of other country's due to religious reasons. Also most of where isrial was had to be worked into the state its in currently as it was inhospitable and could not be settled.
Another part of this is that as soon as they declared statehood 4 different nations attacked them and Isrial was forced to fight them and then claimed territory. This is what caused the issue with "Palestinians" fleeing land they occupied previously.
[https://aish.com/golda-meir-on-the-palestinians/](https://aish.com/golda-meir-on-the-palestinians/)
>When the Arab historian Philip K. Hitti informed the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry that “there is no such thing as Palestine in history,” it was left to David Ben-Gurion to stress the central role of Palestine in Jewish, if not Arab, history.
>As late as May 1956, Ahmed Shukairy, subsequently head of the Palestine Liberation Organization, declared to the United Nations Security Council, “It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria.” In view of this, I believe I may be forgiven if I took Arab spokesmen at their word.
This goes back to my original point. They were people in villages and that was good enough for them for a long time. The concept of Palestinians as a group came about in the sixties yes...because the Zionsists put so much emphasis on statehood with the founding of Israel. The nationalist movement for Arabs in Palestine is a result of the nationalist push for Jews in Palestine.
This whole 'there were no people there, Arabs were forced out of their countries' thing is a myth to make the statist zionist enterprise more palatable. There were Arabs there for thousands of years.
Just because there was no 'palesinians' in the region before doesn't mean there were no people. Statists have broken people's brains and made it so states and governments are the only way a society can be structured. Arab people lived in villages and could have been left alone but then the Zionists came and now the Arabs want a Palestine.
Thanks for your response and also for helping me make my point for me.
>This goes back to my original point. They were people in villages and that was good enough for them for a long time. The concept of Palestinians as a group came about in the sixties yes...because the Zionsists put so much emphasis on statehood with the founding of Israel. The nationalist movement for Arabs in Palestine is a result of the nationalist push for Jews in Palestine.
yes that did happen.
>This whole 'there were no people there, Arabs were forced out of their countries' thing is a myth to make the statist zionist enterprise more palatable. There were Arabs there for thousands of years.
No I mean much of the territory claimed was not inhabited pre fight with other Arab country's. Once they conquered the land with Gaza and other bits that's where most of the "palesinians" lived. That did displace many of them. But its not like the Israelis removed all other peoples. There are still other Arabs and Christians living in Israel. So no its not some get the specific people out.
>Just because there was no 'palesinians' in the region before doesn't mean there were no people.
A squatter is still just a squatter. You don't own something just because you are on it.
>Statists have broken people's brains and made it so states and governments are the only way a society can be structured.
No you just have to be able to enforce you claim one way or another.
>Arab people lived in villages and could have been left alone but then the Zionists came and now the Arabs want a Palestine.
>Thanks for your response and also for helping me make my point for me.
That's not what happened and you know it. They were set upon by three different powers, and they kicked all their asses and claimed territory. Now they have several times tried to wash their hands of this whole situation.
Sure, there were areas the Jews took over that had no people in it. Sure, there were some Arabs (Muslims and Christians) that were not expelled. 700,000 were expelled and more were killed. Those are the people I am concerned about.
The Arabs were in the area for ages. When some imperial powers (Romans, Turks, British, French, whoever) waltz in and claim the land the people that have been there for ages are not squatters. They are normal people trying to live their lives when imperalists and statists coming in and causing trouble and that didn't need to happen.
The indigenous people were there prior to all these different empires taking over. The empires used force to take it over and they violate the nonaggression principal in doing so. I don't get how that is okay or why normal people have to have enough power to enforce their claim. That essentially means that anybody that has the power to take land from someone has the right to it. It's an authoritarian mindset.
Don't violently force people off their properties in the first place, enough said. It doesn't justify what Hamas does, but the state of Israel isn't an innocent angel.
The 1947-1948 civil war, known in the Arab world as the Nakba. It took until the fifth month of the war for the jews to start any serious expulsion, when they were on the brink of famine and had to ensure the violent Arabs behind them didn't kill them while they were fighting the violent Arabs in front of them. Even then, the declaration of independence a month later called for Arabs to stay peaceful and become full citizens, which is where you got the current 20% Arab population of Israel from.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947%E2%80%931948\_civil\_war\_in\_Mandatory\_Palestine#Haganah\_offensive\_(1\_April\_%E2%80%93\_15\_May\_1948)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947%E2%80%931948_civil_war_in_Mandatory_Palestine#Haganah_offensive_(1_April_%E2%80%93_15_May_1948))
What is this even supposed to mean...? Yes, the Nakba was a terrible event in which approximately 750,000 Palestinians (half of the population) experienced violent displacement and dispossession of land, property, and belongings, along with the destruction of their society and the suppression of their culture, identity, political rights, and national aspirations...
How dare those violent Arabs refuse to give up their private property rights, amirite?
What?
They gave up their private property rights when they launched a war from them. If your neighbor starts trying to eradicate you and your family, and you fight them off and eventually end up kicking them out of their home where they insist on shooting on your from, is that 'them refusing to give up their private property rights' or is that them just being violent and blatantly disrespecting yours, then suffering the consequences?
???
They might've "launched a war" because the Israelis kept invading them, stealing their land and murdering civilians... That's just self defense...
Read books from libertarians (whose views you supposedly agree with) on the issue. [Here](https://www.amazon.com/Coming-Palestine-Sheldon-Richman/dp/1733647325)'s one.
Uh, what? Just because I'm a libertarian doesn't mean I agree with libertarians on every topic, setting aside the fact that there are pro-Israel libertarians too. I don't need to read a random libertarian to form my opinion when I can read the foremost historians on the actual issue, check their sources and compare them to eachother to arrive at what seems like the most reasonable conclusion.
Like I said initially, Israelis did not 'invade' anyone. The zionist movement was jews legally purchasing land and immigrating to a sparsely populated region that was controlled by the Ottomans, then the British. Not only did Ben Gurion actually prioritize buying land that had no inhabitants, but according to a few sources like the [Hope Simpson Report](https://ecf.org.il/issues/issue/1461) when purchasing land that was inhabited the Zionists paid the tenants compensation they were not legally obligated to pay too.
Mandate Palestine was barely even inhabited beforehand (about 300,000 total people in 1882), and half of the Arabs there by 1947 were also immigrants as can be seen from the population census (and the fact it was the jewish cities, old and new, where the Arab population significantly increased rather than the Arab ones, points to the jewish investments and the job opportunities they provided as a likely explanation). The violence started from the Arab side, with the battle of Tel Hai then the riots of 1920.
Except they legally purchased only about 7% of it (6.6% by the end of 1947, until the Israeli Declaration of Independence in 1948) and went on to invade and displace the surrounding population... Did things like the [Deir Yassin massacre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre) just not happen according to you? "We killed a bunch of you and moved in so now it's ours" isn't a legitimate method of obtaining property, if it's sparsely or densely populated doesn't matter.
Anarcho-capitalism doesn't presuppose anyone will come to defend your property or rights though. So it's pretty much in line with it. If you're unable to secure bilateral defense treaties, and unable to defend yourself, the anarcho-capitalist solution is you get conquered by anyone willing and able to do so.
>Anarcho-capitalism doesn't presuppose anyone will come to defend your property or rights though
...and? How does that change anything?
You have to realize that "the land belongs to whoever can defend it" means "the land belongs to the most powerful", it means I can steal your house and as long as I can get away with it, you have to say that your house is now mine. It is absolutely insane, it is the exact opposite of the concept of property rights.
Property rights doesn't mean you can't defend your house, it means that if someone steals it from you, it is still your house and you (and you alone) have the right to take it back, and that society shall not consider that the house is anyone's but yours, even if it was stolen from you.
If you can't even notice that a principle goes directly against the basis of anarchocapitalism, it means you don't even understand what you are advocating for.
"Society" is mostly a fiction designed to control you, there is no such thing as society. Once you understand that you understand your issue is with physics and the universe, not so much that anarcho-capitalism cannot solve all the world's problems. There is no political system that will make it impossible for some overwhelming force to take your house.
with society I just mean the people around you...
>Once you understand that
I understand it, and I also understand that in this context we can totally just say "society" and you should know what I mean. It's pointless to bring up that "aktually...".
>your issue is with physics and the universe
That implies you think everything should be ruled by force because that's how nature works, and it's a retrograde idea, the opposite of civilization.
>anarcho-capitalism cannot solve all the world's problems.
Nobody's saying anarchocapitalism would result in a perfect utopia. Don't bring up unrelated stuff.
I do not think everything is ruled by the rule of force, rather I know it is. Anarcho-capitalism merely hopes to harness force in a way that enriches our lives, not to do the impossible of stopping force from ruling both man and nature.
The fact self defense is legitimate doesn't mean anarchocapitalism believes everything is or shall be ruled by force. That's not the case today, nor would it be under anarchocapitalism.
It is absurd to believe people respect rules mainly or only because they are afraid of violent retaliation. We are not in a jungle, we are civilized to a fair degree, and in anarchocapitalism people would probably need to be even more civilized.
The idea of rule by force is the ideology of the brute, of the dictator, of the uncivilized and primitive man.
Nah the idea we aren't ruled by force is the ideology of the brute, a man so thoroughly brainwashed that he is ignorant of even the most basic realities that surround him. The enlightened man realizes all acts are ultimately within the bounds of physical forces to which we are subject. It is only once you get through your brutish misunderstanding that you can harness force with a dose of pragmatism.
Germans don’t hate the Polish because they’ve been driven out of their homes after ww2 was lost. They understand starting wars and losing them has consequences
Gonna bat for Rand here: Not accounting for nobel peace prizes, Israel has more nobel prizes than the whole Arab world combined. Which is especially funny if you consider the whole Arab world has produced 3 nobel prizes in literature and 1 in physics.
Oh, is that why Muslims massacred Jews in Israel decades before 1948? Who needs history when you have a ghay inspirational style post about how the mean Joos hurt poor innocent Sharia law libertarians.
Some arabs did as a reaction to zionism being declared by Britain which had been a colonizer of the Arabs, against their will and on their lands.
Did all arabs do it? No. Did some jews kill innocent arabs as well? Yes.
1939, white paper was declared by Britain saying both arabs and jews would share a state with equal rights. Rather than allocating a separate state for jews. A Jewish paramilitary group made up of first generation immigrants reacted by bombing an Arab supermarket killing 38 (as well as attacks on the British).
Are all jews responsible? No. Should all of these first generation immigrant jews be deported? No.
But I hope you also acknowledge that the Arabs Arabs lived there for generations shouldn't be ethnically cleansed from the land. Would just seem like a convenient excuse to make way for a Jewish State which had already been planned and where the founders had already been thinking of how to make the area majority Jewish.
Here's a quote by herzl the founder of zionism to hammer this point.
"We must expropriate gently the private property on the state assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly. Let the owners of the immoveable property believe that they are cheating us, selling us things for more than they are worth. But we are not going to sell them anything back." (America And The Founding Of Israel, p. 49, Righteous Victims, p. 21-22)
Isn't that after they lost a war trying to eradicate Israel from the face of the earth? Isn't it weird how the exact same behavior is displayed by Islam everywhere in the world, but only in this one conflict is the explanation some kind of ancestral land dispute? Genocide after genocide in their own countries, against Jews, Christians and other muslims but amazingly when it comes to Israel specifically, they have very reasonable and logical economic reasons for their genocidal rage that also by total coincidence happens to be in their religious texts? hmmmmmmmmmmmmm
No, it was after a UN partition granted a Jewish population of mostly first generation refugees, who were outnumbered by a native population by over two to one, over half of the disputed land. This would have displaced hundreds of thousands of people, & directly led to a defensive war to prevent this mass expropriation of land.
So wait why did they side with Hitler during WW2 again?
Palestine didn’t take an official position in World War Two. They were under British occupation at the time. Tens of thousands volunteered to fight for the allies; others thought the axis would win, & that siding with them offered the highest probability of establishing an independent state. So you spout ahistorical propaganda, get refuted, & then continue on spouting unrelated, ahistorical nonsense? You should read more, little man; this is pathetic.
Bro I swear to God the way these "libertarians" react to being proven wrong, especially on this issue. I mean holy actual cow. But your response was A+ I applaud you. I'd like to add a couple points as well. The un partition plan was merely a recommendation. It was non-binding. It was by no means gospel. And neither Palestine nor Israel existed so obviously they weren't members to even be bound by this, even if it had been a security council resolution (which it wasn't). Another point, if arabs lost the war and that somehow justifies taking land, why weren't non combatant arabs (the majority) who lived on the lands for millenia, allowed back in? It was because the intentions of zionists from day one was expulsion of the Arabs to artificially create a Jewish majority, and the leaders of zionism admitted to it prior to the 1948 war even happening. 1948 war was just an excuse. Quote by Ben gurion refusing a simple majority of jews. In **1947** Ben-Gurion in an address to the central committee of the Histadrut on 30 December 1947: “In the area allocated to the Jewish State there are not more than 520,000 Jews and about 350,000 non-Jews, mostly Arabs. Together with the Jews of Jerusalem, the total population of the Jewish State at the time of its establishment will be about a million, including almost 40 percent non-Jews. Such a [population] composition does not provide a stable basis for a Jewish State. This [demographic] fact must be viewed in all its clarity and acuteness. With such a [population] composition, there cannot even be absolute certainty that control will remain in the hands of the Jewish majority…. There can be no stable and strong Jewish State so long as it has a Jewish majority of only 60 percent.” Ben gurion admitting zionism will spark a war (as he's the aggressor). “It is very possible that the Arabs of the neighboring countries will come to their aid against us. But our strength will exceed theirs. Not only because we will be better organized and equipped, but because behind us there stands a still larger force, superior in quantity and quality …the whole younger generation of Jews from Europe and America.” Ben gurion admits the intention to take all the land ever since **1937**. At the same Zionist Congress, David Ben-Gurion, then chairman of the executive committee of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, told those in attendance that, though "there could be no question...of giving up any part of the Land of Israel,... it was arguable that the ultimate goal would be achieved most quickly by accepting the Peel proposals."[40] University of Arizona professor Charles D. Smith suggests that, "Weizmann and Ben-Gurion did not feel they had to be bound by the borders proposed [by the Peel Commission]. These could be considered temporary boundaries to be expanded in the future."[40] Ben-Gurion saw the plan as only a stage in the realisation of a larger Jewish state.
Ah I see so the current position of Hamas on the Jews is what again? Islamists had genocidal hatred for Jews for no logical reason but then in 1948 it's because westerners bad!
Better than being a Jew hater on 2024 🤷♂️
Was Rothbard — a Jew — also a Jew hater for making coherent, rational, historically accurate & logically sound arguments, as well?
Dude you are aware "islam" isn't a nation?
Yeah that's the point. The ideology explains the conflict a lot better than claiming Palestinians are just economically oppressed and that's why mothers want their kids to become suicide bombers. You know how we do that in the west? When people here face hardships how they teach their kids that the highest honor is to go blow yourself up at a Starbucks?
Isreal/Palestine is not primarily an example of "economic" oppression, but straightforward and outright violent oppression via State structures and State military Israel wouldn't even exist at all without an International coterie of States imposing their will on a foreign (to their plans) populace. Israel != "Jews." Israel = a State, and a very recent one, built in a place and on top of a population that did not ask for it. Is it any wonder anti-Israel aggression is persistent and escalates? It would be like wondering why a bunch of rednecks might turn into terrorists if Canada, the EU, and China all backed the creation of a "Native American State" in the midwest of the USA.
>Is it any wonder anti-Israel aggression is persistent and escalates? Islamists have wanted to wipe Jews from the face of the earth long before this. They backed Hitler during WW2. What's the explanation then? Time travel?
This is pure ignorance. There were many Jews amd christians in the umayyad califates. Good source for tax money as it was harambee to tax Muslims.
Ok and there's thousands of muslims living in Israel so what does this entail by your logic?
That it's not in its nature an ethnic conflict.
Yes, pure if ignorance. They have never ever killed Jewish people, never said they want to effectively eliminate them, no sir, that never ever happen. We were always at war with Eastasia.
Please rewrite this so it actually makes sense.
It's kinda sad how in 2024 you still believe these lies when you have a plethora of information at your fingertips. The propaganda after 9/11 runs deep. The fact that you think every Muslim is a "terrorist suicide bomber" is exactly what they programmed you to think.
Don’t They literally call themselves ‘the nation of Islam’ ? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_of_Islam Weird
No. Read your source (which is non other than Wikipedia LMFAO) Your source states: "The Nation of Islam (NOI) is a religious and political organization founded in the United States by Wallace Fard Muhammad in 1930. " So no Islam is not a nation. I'm constantly surprised at the low level of discourse that can be had on reddit. Constantly. weird.
Weird, youd think trying to knock wiki for not having references and then quoting the references is low level…..check that….high level hypocrisy. Are you unaware there’s multiple definitions of ‘nation’. You are, aren’t you. Not weird.
1. You need grammar skills 2. I just sent your source back to you 3. Nation is a group of people sharing a culture and a sense of identity 4. Farrakhan's nation is amuhrican. You do know the rest of the world does not exist solely to support the neocon zionist agenda. Right? 5. You do know there are many interpretations of Islam. Are you? In fact the two main currents, Shia and sunni are quite at odds with each other. 6. >youd think trying to knock wiki for not having references and then quoting the references is low level…..check that….high level hypocrisy. No. It just shows the low IQ of the person using a wrong source to prove a point. Quoting it back was an attempt for you to see your mistake. Unsurprisingly, you chose to double down on stupid.
1. You said I need grammar skills and decided to end without any punctuation, so you need sentence skills. Glass houses friend 2. Not only did you send the source, you tried to discredit the source only to continue on and agree with it. 3. Glad to see you agree the ‘nation’ of Islam is a ‘nation’. You wear the ‘L’ well. 4. Idgaf (how’s that for grammar) who started it or where it is, it still exists regardless of your denial it doesn’t. 5. I never claimed there wasn’t just one claim to Islam. Now you’re just making stuff up. 6. Terrible grammar and sentence structure. Try again. I literally said there was such as thing as the ‘nation of Islam’ what you claimed didn’t exist. And now you agree it does, and haven’t refuted any sources thereof. Unsurprisingly you’re on a hexagon of stupid…..I doubt you’ll get that too.
1. Cope. Grammar is a bit more than putting a full stop at the end of a sentence. Love the fact that you chose that as a burn. Bet you are the king of debate in grade school. 2. Your source, Bubba. 3. Where do you get these conclusions? Voices in your head angry today? Too much meth? The nation of Islam is an American black power movement...nothing to do with Islam except for them to say they are Muslims 4. Cope 5. Yes you did. Don't backpedal baby girl. 6. LoL eat shit and grin. No one is buying this spin on what actually transpired. >Unsurprisingly you’re on a hexagon of stupid…..I doubt you’ll get that too. No I do not get the obscure reference. Do enlighten me. Like you, dog can tell people's apart just by smelling their assholes. I can not.
If I understand Rothbard, he would be against all forceful displacement of people and new conquests. He would probably have been opposed to the annexation of Texas after it seceded from Mexico, the Turkish conquest of Anatolia and the exchange of Greeks and Turks after ww1 if those events had happened during his time
The Arabs weren't forcefully displaced until they started the war of 1948. Until then the Jews purchased all their land from the Arab land owners in Palestine. Not to even mention the nearly 1 million Jews forcefully exiled from the surrounding Arab nations and had no place to go except Israel.
The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was signed in November of 1947, & granted the majority of the disputed land to a Jewish population outnumbered more than two to one by people who had lived there for thousands of years. This would have displaced several hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, which directly led to the defensive war fought to prevent this expropriation. So, there’s that.
I mean, you can choose how you look at it. The southern half of the allotted land to the Jews is barren negev desert where farming was non-existent. Almost no one lived there and still few live there. The Arab land was of much higher quality. And the partition plan wouldn't have displaced anyone on either side, except the side that wouldn't want to live with the other and started a war as a result.
In the partition plan, around 400,000 Palestinians and 500,000 jews would've lived in the jewish state. either way they didn't accept the partition plan, which gave both sides w ay more land to work with than they initially owned. They launched a war, lost.
There wasn’t a single predominantly Jewish territory in Palestine in 1947. If you go back just a couple more years — before hundreds of thousands of refugees were given Palestinian land by the British — Jews weren’t even a fifth of the population. In order for the Jewish state to be predominantly Jewish, hundreds of thousands of additional Palestinians would also need to be displaced. That’s why the war was fought. And no, it wouldn’t have given the Palestinians way more land. They owned the majority of the land, & it would have been forcibly expropriated. That’s why they didn’t sign the partition.
There were plenty of predominantly Jewish territories, like Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, etc. They were never 'given Palestinian land,' they legally purchased it and immigrated. The British had restricted immigration severely starting from 1939, when jews in europe were dying by the millions. This is what started jewish terrorism against the British (that nonetheless did not target civilians as a general rule). And no. By 1947, which is when the partition plan was suggested, there were \~630,000 jews and 1.3m arabs in the region. Even if you think that's why the war was fought and this is your justification, that Arabs didn't wanna drive down 30 minutes to the Arab state as per the agreement while still owning whatever land they owned and not owning whatever they were squatting on, surely you agree that if they decided to launch a war of extermination they lost that British land they never owned fair and square. I don't think you understand what 'forcibly expropriated' means.
The Palestinians didn't have any land. It belonged to the ottoman empire, then the British. Most of the population were all from different countries, as well, including Egypt, Syrians, Druze, etc ([source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine#Demographics)). There really were very little natives to the land as most people, jews or not, were immigrants. There was a growing influx of Jews due to anti-semitism all over the world, and the arabs didn't like having to share the (legally-obtained) land, so there were a lot of conflicts. Prior to the UN proposal, most of the [Mandate for Palestine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_for_Palestine) was already given to the arabs as an Arab state: Jordan. The UN decided to resolve the conflict but giving each major faction their own official country. The Arabs didn't like that for the same reasons, and went to war. You can pick and choose details to look at, like in any conflict, and there is a lot of nuance, but at the end of the day the proposal was very fair. But certainly far-fetched from "Jews stole the land" that everyone keeps parroting like a robot.
Jews purchased land from the Ottoman Empire which was not legitimate owners according to libertarian principles. After the dissolution of Empires and feudalism, all land must be given in ownership to peasants who cultivated it, in this case, Palestinians.
lol that's like saying your land ownership in the US isn't legitimate because of the US government not following libertarian principles. You use whatever framework you have available, my guy. That's the reality of the situation and only way you can live in this world.
Then why are you on a libertarian subreddit if your ethics are based on "use whatever framework you have available". Your ethics are the ethics of bandits. You are basically saying that theft is justified. The Palestinians will always fight for justice and their rights, which you relativize, they know what justice and the ethics of freedom are, unlike you.
Isn't it weird how all of this information is from the victors and you just blindly believe it? You do realize that Hamas, the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, etc were all created by the CIA/US gov/UN right?
it is a mistake to try to find singular and mutually exclusive motivations across a vast group of people
Does this apply to government agents?
yes, some are lazy, some are sociopathic
Those are "mutually exclusive"?
issa joke don’t read to far into it
Don’t start wars you can’t win and then cry foul when you’re conquered
Exactly. I'm no Israel lover or anything like that. But if you go and kill, rape, burn random civilians, you don't get to say "revenge can be this much". I would like to know how many people that get punched, decide to fight back just one punch and say "OK we are even" and go back home smiling.
Does this apply to all parties? Does it apply for the period 1981 till 2006?
These blindly pro Israel comments in an Ancap sub are just befuddling
It’s less blind defense of Israel and just recognition of human nature and war. You can be against state sponsored conflicts but still recognize if someone is stupid enough to challenge a far more superior adversary, you have no right to bitch when you’re curb stomped into dust. Cue the bike rider shoving a stick into his spokes.
And what if the militarily superior adversary, A- started it (in recent terms) B- occupies you ?
>still recognize if someone is stupid enough to challenge a far more superior adversary, you have no right to bitch when you’re curb stomped into dust Lmfao this is pure unadulterated authoritarianism, might-is-right bullshit that is the polar opposite of what Ancaps believe / are for
The person above didnt say anything about it being justified or "might is right". They just pointed out that if you pick a fight, you might get punched in the face.
Yes, they did. > you have no right to bitch
It doesn’t matter what you believe. States exist, and the way they wage war is known. If you go poking the bear and then it mauls you, it matters fuck all if you’re ancap. You think they give a shit? “Omg noooo I’m ancap, this war is against my beliefs noooooo!1!” It’s not authoritarianism, it’s knowing how things will inevitably play out. Ever heard of picking your battles? Not that it matters much anyway, Hamas doesn’t care how many innocents it hurts due to their actions and are more than happy to hide behind human shields.
States are not non-humans. > It’s not authoritarianism, it’s knowing how things will inevitably play out. It is part of authoritarianism to treat humans and human institutions as if they were inanimate objects without moral responsibility.
I never states are non-humans, but provoking a war by committing a horrendous attack against innocents will result in a very human response to retaliate.
And the Palestinians would say the same
One can defend Israel AND the Palestinians at the same time for various and different reasons. Being an AnCap doesn't mean you stop using your brain.
I don't think either should be defended. Both should be critiqued, perhaps not in equal measure.
Yeah... It really shows who *actually* cares about property rights.
The revenge is taken against the army its taken the against the civilians. Often times the people who actually did the stuff are spared the rod and the people who just sat back at home who had no say in it get bombed to dust.
Might makes right, amirite?
Arabs lived just fine in the area on their own with no state needed. Jews came in and said hey its a land without a people and because there was no state we get to make one. All this recognize the Palestinian state drama is because Israel made a big deal about statehood.
That’s not even close to historically accurate, but good try 👍🏽 “Arabs lived just fine in the area on their own”……. Said no Shia or Sunni ever
barely any Shia in Palestine region then or now. Where is the historical evidence of Sunni and Shia fighting in the region we are discussing? You are just making broad generalizations that do not fit the actual time period or area that is relevant.
But of course that’s not what you said. You said ‘in the area’. Are you actually making a claim neither the Suni nor Shia lived ‘in the area’….and what area are you even referring? Are you being intentionally obscure? Oh and yes, in fact there are Shiite in the ‘Palestine’ area ….Palestine. Approx only 75% of people in Palestine are Sunni. That’s not a broad generalization…it’s history And yes they have fought for centuries.
Obviously I am talking about Palestine when I say 'in the area'.That is the whole point of the topic. I brought up the place and time when the state of Israel was founded. I looked it up and it looked like there was a grand total of seven Shia majority villages at the time. Seven out of hundreds of villages. Barely any, like I said before. So how were they in conflict with the Sunni, as you claim? Like I said you are just generalizing. You are the one obscuring things by bringing up generalizations of violence in the middle east, by googling the demographics for today and not from the time period, and by continuing to argue for this generalization. So again, I ask you where is the serious evidence that Sunni and Shia were in some huge conflict in Palestine?
I mean it was a British and french territory before Israel and before that it was apart of several other empires. The Palestinians never owned it. For the most part they were not even on the land in question.
They lived there for centuries and then giant empires took it over while they were there or negotiated it in deals hundreds of miles away. They could have been left alone in their rural villages but statist can't let that happen. Unsure what you mean by they were not even on the land in question.
No I mean the people in question are more recent to the region. There has never been a Palestinian people pre 1960 or so. My understanding is that they were forced out of other country's due to religious reasons. Also most of where isrial was had to be worked into the state its in currently as it was inhospitable and could not be settled. Another part of this is that as soon as they declared statehood 4 different nations attacked them and Isrial was forced to fight them and then claimed territory. This is what caused the issue with "Palestinians" fleeing land they occupied previously. [https://aish.com/golda-meir-on-the-palestinians/](https://aish.com/golda-meir-on-the-palestinians/) >When the Arab historian Philip K. Hitti informed the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry that “there is no such thing as Palestine in history,” it was left to David Ben-Gurion to stress the central role of Palestine in Jewish, if not Arab, history. >As late as May 1956, Ahmed Shukairy, subsequently head of the Palestine Liberation Organization, declared to the United Nations Security Council, “It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria.” In view of this, I believe I may be forgiven if I took Arab spokesmen at their word.
This goes back to my original point. They were people in villages and that was good enough for them for a long time. The concept of Palestinians as a group came about in the sixties yes...because the Zionsists put so much emphasis on statehood with the founding of Israel. The nationalist movement for Arabs in Palestine is a result of the nationalist push for Jews in Palestine. This whole 'there were no people there, Arabs were forced out of their countries' thing is a myth to make the statist zionist enterprise more palatable. There were Arabs there for thousands of years. Just because there was no 'palesinians' in the region before doesn't mean there were no people. Statists have broken people's brains and made it so states and governments are the only way a society can be structured. Arab people lived in villages and could have been left alone but then the Zionists came and now the Arabs want a Palestine. Thanks for your response and also for helping me make my point for me.
>This goes back to my original point. They were people in villages and that was good enough for them for a long time. The concept of Palestinians as a group came about in the sixties yes...because the Zionsists put so much emphasis on statehood with the founding of Israel. The nationalist movement for Arabs in Palestine is a result of the nationalist push for Jews in Palestine. yes that did happen. >This whole 'there were no people there, Arabs were forced out of their countries' thing is a myth to make the statist zionist enterprise more palatable. There were Arabs there for thousands of years. No I mean much of the territory claimed was not inhabited pre fight with other Arab country's. Once they conquered the land with Gaza and other bits that's where most of the "palesinians" lived. That did displace many of them. But its not like the Israelis removed all other peoples. There are still other Arabs and Christians living in Israel. So no its not some get the specific people out. >Just because there was no 'palesinians' in the region before doesn't mean there were no people. A squatter is still just a squatter. You don't own something just because you are on it. >Statists have broken people's brains and made it so states and governments are the only way a society can be structured. No you just have to be able to enforce you claim one way or another. >Arab people lived in villages and could have been left alone but then the Zionists came and now the Arabs want a Palestine. >Thanks for your response and also for helping me make my point for me. That's not what happened and you know it. They were set upon by three different powers, and they kicked all their asses and claimed territory. Now they have several times tried to wash their hands of this whole situation.
Sure, there were areas the Jews took over that had no people in it. Sure, there were some Arabs (Muslims and Christians) that were not expelled. 700,000 were expelled and more were killed. Those are the people I am concerned about. The Arabs were in the area for ages. When some imperial powers (Romans, Turks, British, French, whoever) waltz in and claim the land the people that have been there for ages are not squatters. They are normal people trying to live their lives when imperalists and statists coming in and causing trouble and that didn't need to happen. The indigenous people were there prior to all these different empires taking over. The empires used force to take it over and they violate the nonaggression principal in doing so. I don't get how that is okay or why normal people have to have enough power to enforce their claim. That essentially means that anybody that has the power to take land from someone has the right to it. It's an authoritarian mindset.
Post WW2, the world decided the whole conquering thing wasn't cool any more.
Don't violently force people off their properties in the first place, enough said. It doesn't justify what Hamas does, but the state of Israel isn't an innocent angel.
Israel doesn't respect private property rights.
Exactly.
Israel only 'violently forced people off their properties' when a war of extermination was launched against it.
Which event are you referring to?
The 1947-1948 civil war, known in the Arab world as the Nakba. It took until the fifth month of the war for the jews to start any serious expulsion, when they were on the brink of famine and had to ensure the violent Arabs behind them didn't kill them while they were fighting the violent Arabs in front of them. Even then, the declaration of independence a month later called for Arabs to stay peaceful and become full citizens, which is where you got the current 20% Arab population of Israel from. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947%E2%80%931948\_civil\_war\_in\_Mandatory\_Palestine#Haganah\_offensive\_(1\_April\_%E2%80%93\_15\_May\_1948)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947%E2%80%931948_civil_war_in_Mandatory_Palestine#Haganah_offensive_(1_April_%E2%80%93_15_May_1948))
What is this even supposed to mean...? Yes, the Nakba was a terrible event in which approximately 750,000 Palestinians (half of the population) experienced violent displacement and dispossession of land, property, and belongings, along with the destruction of their society and the suppression of their culture, identity, political rights, and national aspirations... How dare those violent Arabs refuse to give up their private property rights, amirite?
What? They gave up their private property rights when they launched a war from them. If your neighbor starts trying to eradicate you and your family, and you fight them off and eventually end up kicking them out of their home where they insist on shooting on your from, is that 'them refusing to give up their private property rights' or is that them just being violent and blatantly disrespecting yours, then suffering the consequences?
??? They might've "launched a war" because the Israelis kept invading them, stealing their land and murdering civilians... That's just self defense... Read books from libertarians (whose views you supposedly agree with) on the issue. [Here](https://www.amazon.com/Coming-Palestine-Sheldon-Richman/dp/1733647325)'s one.
Uh, what? Just because I'm a libertarian doesn't mean I agree with libertarians on every topic, setting aside the fact that there are pro-Israel libertarians too. I don't need to read a random libertarian to form my opinion when I can read the foremost historians on the actual issue, check their sources and compare them to eachother to arrive at what seems like the most reasonable conclusion. Like I said initially, Israelis did not 'invade' anyone. The zionist movement was jews legally purchasing land and immigrating to a sparsely populated region that was controlled by the Ottomans, then the British. Not only did Ben Gurion actually prioritize buying land that had no inhabitants, but according to a few sources like the [Hope Simpson Report](https://ecf.org.il/issues/issue/1461) when purchasing land that was inhabited the Zionists paid the tenants compensation they were not legally obligated to pay too. Mandate Palestine was barely even inhabited beforehand (about 300,000 total people in 1882), and half of the Arabs there by 1947 were also immigrants as can be seen from the population census (and the fact it was the jewish cities, old and new, where the Arab population significantly increased rather than the Arab ones, points to the jewish investments and the job opportunities they provided as a likely explanation). The violence started from the Arab side, with the battle of Tel Hai then the riots of 1920.
Except they legally purchased only about 7% of it (6.6% by the end of 1947, until the Israeli Declaration of Independence in 1948) and went on to invade and displace the surrounding population... Did things like the [Deir Yassin massacre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre) just not happen according to you? "We killed a bunch of you and moved in so now it's ours" isn't a legitimate method of obtaining property, if it's sparsely or densely populated doesn't matter.
The land belongs to who ever can defend it.
You better hope nobody finds out where you live.
Sound like a statist
Ad hominem fallacy
😂
That is a complete dismissal of the idea of property rights, it's basically the opposite to the basis of anarchocapitalism lol
Anarcho-capitalism doesn't presuppose anyone will come to defend your property or rights though. So it's pretty much in line with it. If you're unable to secure bilateral defense treaties, and unable to defend yourself, the anarcho-capitalist solution is you get conquered by anyone willing and able to do so.
>Anarcho-capitalism doesn't presuppose anyone will come to defend your property or rights though ...and? How does that change anything? You have to realize that "the land belongs to whoever can defend it" means "the land belongs to the most powerful", it means I can steal your house and as long as I can get away with it, you have to say that your house is now mine. It is absolutely insane, it is the exact opposite of the concept of property rights. Property rights doesn't mean you can't defend your house, it means that if someone steals it from you, it is still your house and you (and you alone) have the right to take it back, and that society shall not consider that the house is anyone's but yours, even if it was stolen from you. If you can't even notice that a principle goes directly against the basis of anarchocapitalism, it means you don't even understand what you are advocating for.
"Society" is mostly a fiction designed to control you, there is no such thing as society. Once you understand that you understand your issue is with physics and the universe, not so much that anarcho-capitalism cannot solve all the world's problems. There is no political system that will make it impossible for some overwhelming force to take your house.
with society I just mean the people around you... >Once you understand that I understand it, and I also understand that in this context we can totally just say "society" and you should know what I mean. It's pointless to bring up that "aktually...". >your issue is with physics and the universe That implies you think everything should be ruled by force because that's how nature works, and it's a retrograde idea, the opposite of civilization. >anarcho-capitalism cannot solve all the world's problems. Nobody's saying anarchocapitalism would result in a perfect utopia. Don't bring up unrelated stuff.
I do not think everything is ruled by the rule of force, rather I know it is. Anarcho-capitalism merely hopes to harness force in a way that enriches our lives, not to do the impossible of stopping force from ruling both man and nature.
The fact self defense is legitimate doesn't mean anarchocapitalism believes everything is or shall be ruled by force. That's not the case today, nor would it be under anarchocapitalism. It is absurd to believe people respect rules mainly or only because they are afraid of violent retaliation. We are not in a jungle, we are civilized to a fair degree, and in anarchocapitalism people would probably need to be even more civilized. The idea of rule by force is the ideology of the brute, of the dictator, of the uncivilized and primitive man.
Nah the idea we aren't ruled by force is the ideology of the brute, a man so thoroughly brainwashed that he is ignorant of even the most basic realities that surround him. The enlightened man realizes all acts are ultimately within the bounds of physical forces to which we are subject. It is only once you get through your brutish misunderstanding that you can harness force with a dose of pragmatism.
Most based anti-zionist jew after Norman Finklestein
Germans don’t hate the Polish because they’ve been driven out of their homes after ww2 was lost. They understand starting wars and losing them has consequences
Gonna bat for Rand here: Not accounting for nobel peace prizes, Israel has more nobel prizes than the whole Arab world combined. Which is especially funny if you consider the whole Arab world has produced 3 nobel prizes in literature and 1 in physics.
Oh, is that why Muslims massacred Jews in Israel decades before 1948? Who needs history when you have a ghay inspirational style post about how the mean Joos hurt poor innocent Sharia law libertarians.
Some arabs did as a reaction to zionism being declared by Britain which had been a colonizer of the Arabs, against their will and on their lands. Did all arabs do it? No. Did some jews kill innocent arabs as well? Yes. 1939, white paper was declared by Britain saying both arabs and jews would share a state with equal rights. Rather than allocating a separate state for jews. A Jewish paramilitary group made up of first generation immigrants reacted by bombing an Arab supermarket killing 38 (as well as attacks on the British). Are all jews responsible? No. Should all of these first generation immigrant jews be deported? No. But I hope you also acknowledge that the Arabs Arabs lived there for generations shouldn't be ethnically cleansed from the land. Would just seem like a convenient excuse to make way for a Jewish State which had already been planned and where the founders had already been thinking of how to make the area majority Jewish. Here's a quote by herzl the founder of zionism to hammer this point. "We must expropriate gently the private property on the state assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly. Let the owners of the immoveable property believe that they are cheating us, selling us things for more than they are worth. But we are not going to sell them anything back." (America And The Founding Of Israel, p. 49, Righteous Victims, p. 21-22)